Transportation – Voice of OChttps://voiceofoc.org
Orange County's nonprofit newsroomMon, 21 Jan 2019 09:08:10 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9Santa Ana Prohibits Downtown Merchants From Suing OC Streetcar for Disrupting Businesseshttps://voiceofoc.org/2018/12/santa-ana-prohibits-downtown-merchants-from-suing-oc-streetcar-for-disrupting-businesses/
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/12/santa-ana-prohibits-downtown-merchants-from-suing-oc-streetcar-for-disrupting-businesses/#respondThu, 20 Dec 2018 15:03:06 +0000https://voiceofoc.org/?p=758608The City of Santa Ana could yank money from the promotion of downtown businesses if those companies sue over parking, traffic or other disruptions caused by construction of the OC Streetcar Project that runs through one of the city’s busiest commercial areas.

The streetcar broke ground Nov. 30 and has been a passion project for Santa Ana Mayor and county Transportation Agency director Miguel Pulido, who pushed it for years as an engine of economic growth. But critics of the project say the three-year construction period along 4th Street would disrupt the area’s storefronts with lane closures, take parking spaces away from family households, and drive gentrification by pricing mostly Latino families out of their homes and commercial spaces.

Madeleine Spencer, Executive Directing Consultant for the Santa Ana Business Council, said a clause in a funding contract with the city places an “embargo” on the 796 downtown merchants the Business Council represents and limits them “from litigating against any damages and or harm that may be caused or related to the OC Streetcar Project.”

The contract is for an annual $100,000 allocation from a city “Downtown Merchants Fund” to the Business Council, which then disperses the money to things like marketing, events, and training for business owners in the area. A breach of the streetcar clause could prompt the city to withhold all of the funding.

Former Councilwoman Michele Martinez publicly criticized a broader version of the streetcar clause in December 2017, in which merchants who are part of the Business Council “would also not be able to participate in any activities opposing the OC Streetcar or opposing any issues or activities related to the streetcar project” such as a public protest.

“This (language) goes against everything we believe in regarding transparency,” said Martinez, who requested that section of the clause be removed. In the current version of the contract, that language is no longer there, though City Attorney Sonia Carvalho didn’t respond to inquiries of whether or not merchants under the Business Council can now speak out publicly.

“In the long term, the Santa Ana Business Council recognizes the benefit of multi-modal transit and building a networked city. In the short term … we are setting aside funds to assure some small loans to assist with mitigation,” said Spencer, who added that the small loans would only go to businesses in most need during construction. Spencer publicly requested in a Voice of OC op-ed last year the city and OCTA look into a plan to mitigate potential disruptions to downtown business.

OCTA spokesman Eric Carpenter said in an email the agency won’t have a good idea of the construction schedule or potential impacts until after the start of the new year.
But an OCTA webpage for the streetcar explicitly states that parking “will be impacted” and “construction lane closures will be required.”

“As of now, there’s no road closure or detour information for construction-related activities. Utility companies are working to relocate utilities where needed and some temporary lane reductions have been required. But that work is mostly being done without interfering with car or pedestrian traffic,” Carpenter said. The streetcar is set to begin operating in 2021 and will run just over four miles from Santa Ana’s train station to Garden Grove’s.

Spencer said despite potential disruptions caused by the streetcar construction, the businesses along 4th Street will remain open.

“We have an amazing and resilient group of merchants in our downtown,” Spencer added. “We know that if we all work together we can weather any storm and come out again with the sun shining on everyone.”

Brandon Pho is a Voice of OC intern. Contact him at bpho@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @photherecord.

The two are running to take Supervisor Shawn Nelson’s seat as he terms out this year. Chaffee is mayor of Fullerton and Shaw is the mayor of La Habra. The top priority for both, they said, is addressing the growing homelessness issue.

“I consider the Board of Supervisors to be dysfunctional. They seem more concerned about advancing their careers instead of doing the right thing for the County … Not establishing homeless places for people to go in south county. They had opportunities to do that on county land and they kinda chickened out,” Chaffee said to an audience of roughly 40 people.

Shaw wasn’t as critical of Supervisors, but said he believes in the “housing first” model to address the homelessness issue and cities need to band together to help build permanent supportive housing, which is housing geared for homeless people that has medical, mental health, job planning and a variety of other services on site.

“What we’re lacking is that permanent supportive housing,” Shaw said. “It obviously has to be regional approach. We don’t have to have permanent supportive housing built in every single city … other cities can contribute — it does need to be regional.”

The moderator, CSUF political science professor Stephen Stambough, asked how each candidate could get south county cities to chip in more in addressing the homelessness issue. Members of the audience also submitted questions for candidates, with much of them being about homelessness, Stambough said.

“That’s a tough question because the city’s all have control of their local territory … when you pick a site there’s always a NIMBY (not in my backyard) contingent that seems to object,” Chaffee said.

Supervisors initially proposed building a homeless shelter on county-owned land in Irvine in March, but faced immediate protests from residents. After busloads of Irvine residents showed up to the March 27 meeting, Supervisors cancelled the plan.

“Busloads of people came up from south county and they (Supervisors) chickened out and backed away,” Chaffee said.

“It’s 114 acres of state-owned land and the local cities can’t really have a say on that.” Chaffee said.

Shaw said the county shouldn’t try to place too many homeless people in one city, but the County should put more pressure on cities.

“No one part of the county can be off the hook here, but I don’t think you can take one city and say you’re going to take thousands and thousands … but everyone has to do something here,” Shaw said. “You can find a site that’s perhaps more in an industrial area … you don’t just want to jam it down on them, but hopefully with some city council leadership and some county leadership, we can overcome the NIMBYism and find the appropriate sites as needed. ”

“The county has built up a healthy amount there and it should be spent wisely,” Shaw said. “The approach I agree with — housing first, getting people into the housing … and that’s where we can begin the treatment.”

Shaw also said he supports institutionalizing people who have severe mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, to get them treatment. “The problem we have with the courts is its their Constitutional right … they can be out in the street.”

“The County has accumulated … millions of dollars and has not used it as it should have,” Chaffee said, adding that seniors also need more mental health services. “I think we need to have clinics more regionalized, not just in the central part (of the county), so that access can be available to them.”

Transportation was another issue that came up and Shaw said it’s also one of his top priorities because he expects to be chair of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) board chairman next year. He’s currently the vice chair.

Shaw said Measure M, the half cent sales tax passed by voters in 2006, was supposed to generate $24 billion over 30 years, but the 2008 recession, coupled with the loss of sales tax due to online shopping, has reduced that projection to $13 billion.

“So the OCTA is trying to make that promise to voters with significantly less money,” Shaw said, adding that the online sales tax is unfairly allocated to cities.

Chaffee said he supports the “No” vote on Proposition 6 and wants to focus on more train services, but the freight companies own the lines and he wants to work with them to get more passenger cars.

Stambough asked how the candidates would support undocumented college students and both candidates said they want to support them.

“We need to support them … they’re not here to get a free load, they’re here to better themselves,” Chaffee said, adding he disagrees with the County’s move to join the federal lawsuit against the state over its sanctuary city law.

“If they’re coming to a university, they’re obviously interested in bettering themselves … We want to have people come here who want to work hard,” Shaw said.

Stambough asked how the candidates would increase public participation at the county level.

“I have what I call a different open-door policy … mine is open so I can go out. I want to continue meeting people,” Chaffee said. “My intention is to meet, at least quarterly, with each city manager to get their input.

Chaffee also said he wants to meet with workers at the Orange County Employees Agency, “I want to listen to them. They’re members of the public too.”

“I’m going to instruct my field staff to be at city council meetings … to make myself available as much as possible,” Shaw said.

Shaw also wants to revive Nelson’s breakfast he used to have with council members and city managers in the Fourth District.

“Having all the mayors and city council members of the district and kind of get together for breakfast … and talk about our needs for the region,” Shaw said.

Spencer Custodio is a Voice of OC reporter who covers south Orange County and Fullerton. You can reach him at scustodio@voiceofoc.org. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerCustodio

]]>https://voiceofoc.org/2018/10/oc-supervisor-candidates-shaw-and-chafee-debate-at-csuf/feed/0City and Anaheim Ducks Propose 25-Year Lease and Development Around Honda Centerhttps://voiceofoc.org/2018/10/anaheim-ducks-propose-25-year-lease-and-development-around-honda-center/
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/10/anaheim-ducks-propose-25-year-lease-and-development-around-honda-center/#commentsFri, 26 Oct 2018 13:24:24 +0000https://voiceofoc.org/?p=698176The city of Anaheim is negotiating a 25-year lease with the Anaheim Ducks hockey team and the operators of the Honda Center to develop properties surrounding the center into a mixed-use entertainment complex.

The city announced a negotiating framework for the deal shortly after the city’s baseball team, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, terminated its lease agreement beginning in October 2019, setting off a new round of negotiations over where the team will call home.

“I think there is a tremendous opportunity here to work with folks at Anaheim Arena Management to keep the Ducks here for an awfully long time,” said Mayor Tom Tait at a city council meeting Oct. 23. “It might seem a little early because it’s not a final agreement, but I want to let the public know…and encourage the public to weigh in on it.”

The broad terms of the deal were approved unanimously by the Anaheim City Council at the Oct. 23 meeting and call for the city to sell three Honda Center parking lots, plus a lot across the street, at fair market value to Anaheim Arena Management (AAM), which could be developed into homes, office and commercial space. The vote gives city staff a framework to negotiate the final terms of the deal for later approval by the city council.

The Ducks, who have been based in Anaheim the past 25 years, would sign onto another 25-year commitment with Anaheim after their current agreement ends in June 2023. Anaheim Arena Management, which currently operates and maintains the Honda Center, would continue operating the facility until 2048.

It also calls for Anaheim Arena Management to take over operations of the troubled Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) train station, which has operated on a deficit since opening in 2014. Under the proposal, AAM would assume all responsibility for operating losses. Beginning in 2017, the city has paid the facility’s deficit – averaging $2.5 million a year – from its general fund.

“It’s a very big deal and a good deal,” Tait said.

Ducks’ Proposal

The 820-acre area around the Honda Center, Angel Stadium and ARTIC is known as the Platinum Triangle, a planning area with nearly $1.5 billion in new mixed-use developments in the pipeline.

Current city planning documents allow for 17,501 residential units, 4.8 million square feet of commercial space, 9.2 million square feet of office development and 1.5 million square feet of institutional uses, like universities, government or hospital facilities.

At the council meeting, city staff said the proposed Honda Center development would be modeled after entertainment complexes like L.A. Live, which is located in downtown Los Angeles and includes the Staples Center, LA Convention Center, a retail plaza, hotels, condominiums, concert theaters, restaurants and more.

Changing a profit-sharing agreement for the Honda Center so that the city receives half of all profits after a $6 million threshold. The current lease gives the city 20 percent of all profits after $12 million, but because the Honda Center has never generated $12 million in profits, the city has never collected any extra revenue.

Create a profit-sharing agreement for ARTIC where the city receives 60 percent of all revenue and AAM receives 40 percent.

Create a new digital advertising sign along the 57 Freeway at ARTIC

Through spokeswoman Erika Hall, Anaheim Arena Management issued a brief statement and declined to comment on the deal specifically.

“We’re excited to work with the City of Anaheim as we continue to plan for the future of the Anaheim Ducks and Honda Center,” said Hall. “We are always looking to improve the fan experience and bring Anaheim the very best in world-class entertainment.”

Councilman Stephen Faessel, who otherwise called the proposal a “great deal,” questioned why the deal includes the sale of a parking lot across from the Honda Center by ARTIC without a formal bidding process where other developers could also bid for the property.

“ARTIC is not that far from Angel Stadium, and now we’re likely going to have to negotiate a deal with the Angels, how do we know the Angels won’t give us a better deal?” Faessel said.

Tait said selling the ARTIC lot to Anaheim Arena Management would make it easier to construct a proposed pedestrian bridge over Katella Avenue, so the city would not have to negotiate with multiple entities to construct the bridge.

City spokesman Mike Lyster later clarified the city is not considering selling the ARTIC lot, but may lease it to the Honda Center.

Councilwoman Lucille Kring called the deal a “no-brainer” and said no other developers have approached the city with interest in the lot next to ARTIC. She praised Anaheim Arena Management for the proposal to take over operations of ARTIC.

“No one else has come to the city. AAM has said we’re there, we’re want to do it,” Kring said. “$2.5 million from the general fund is phenomenal, it’s fabulous, it’s great – I don’t know how many police officers you can get…but it’s better in our general fund than writing a check every year to ARTIC.”

Faessel and Kring also raised concerns the new deal would reduce the number of suites at the Honda Center, which each have 20 seats, available to the city from two suites to one.

Councilmembers each receive four tickets in those suites, with an additional seven tickets for the mayor and mayor pro tem, and six for the city manager. Most of those tickets are given to nonprofit groups for fundraisers and city employees, although council members can also use those tickets personally. Officials are required to disclose ticket giveaways on the city website.

Councilwoman Kris Murray accused Tait of dragging his feet on making the terms of the deal public, saying he could have opened up the discussion months earlier in order to get it finalized before a new city council is installed in December.

“I’m confused as to why we’re inviting the public in at this point unless it’s purely symbolic. It’s right in front of the election,” said Murray. “If this were truly about engaging the public constructively, why did we not do this months ago?”

Murray was supportive of the deal but said it should be much farther along.

“Vision and leadership take action – it’s getting together and getting the job done, not just sitting back and waiting for it to be delivered to us,” Murray said. “I would ask that you do that as mayor in your final months.”

Other council members disagreed with Murray’s characterization, saying the terms of the deal have only solidified in recent months.

Tait said he would like to be able to vote on the deal before the next city council is sworn in – Tait is termed-out this year and three other council seats are up for grabs – but he doesn’t want to rush the process.

The council gave staff the go-ahead to begin negotiating the deal in early 2017, and the city council has discussed the deal in five closed sessions starting in January of this year.

“There’s no giveaways, there’s no subsidy,” Moreno said. “And the Ducks didn’t ask us for any of that.”

He also expressed concern about losing the city council suites, but said the focus should be on keeping the team in Anaheim.

Pressure from Angels’ Baseball

Since news of the Angels’ termination of the lease broke last week, critics of the current city council have framed the team’s decision as a result of Tait’s hardline opposition to subsidies and special deals to benefit the city’s corporations and sports teams.

Tait was a vocal critic of a proposed lease during a round of negotiations in 2013, when a previous city council approved a negotiating framework that grants Angels owner Arte Moreno the land around the stadium for 66 years at $1 per year.

The idea was for Moreno to develop the property and use those revenues to finance $150 million in improvements for the city-owned stadium. That negotiating framework also would allow Moreno to drop “Anaheim” from the team’s official name.

Murray called the Angels’ lease termination the result of a toxic political environment for local businesses and tied the decision to a recent move by the Disneyland Resort to cancel a four-diamond hotel project.

“There are very severe concerns about the business environment in the city,” Murray said. “There are a lot of unknowns that November holds.”

Others have suggested the Angels’ timed their announcement as an election season pressure tactic.

Asked if Anaheim is the team’s first choice, Angels’ spokeswoman Marie Garvey said the team is trying to keep all its options open and is looking for “long term certainty.”

Garvey said the decision was solely based on a deadline in the lease which required the team to notify the city of intent to terminate the agreement by Oct. 16, 2018.

“We really made the decision because Oct. 16 was the last day we could exercise the one-time opt out, otherwise we’d have to wait until 2049,” said Garvey.

Angel Stadium, constructed in 1966, is the fourth oldest baseball stadium in the country. It last underwent major renovations in 1993, when Disney acquired the team.

Arte Moreno has also invested about $1 million a year on infrastructure and maintenance of the stadium, said Garvey.

How costs to renovate the aging stadium will be split will be a central part of any negotiations between Anaheim and the Angels going forward.

“This gives parties a chance to start up fresh and come up with an agreement that makes sense for the city and that recognizes the tremendous value of the property, and [of having] a sporting team named after your city,” Tait said.

Orange County and its cities are set to receive $1.5 billion in funding from gas tax revenues over the next ten years, according to the state’s website dedicated to gas tax funding, although not all of those funds have been allocated or approved.

About $133.6 million already has been received and allocated to OCTA, according to spokesman Eric Carpenter.

Ridership, fares and the local sales revenues that fund transportation programs have continued to decline, and although the recent bus overhaul has slowed that rate, officials had been prepared to make further cuts. The passage of the gas tax eliminated that funding shortfall.

“This is a process we would have started two years ago if the legislature hadn’t passed [Senate Bill 1],” said CEO Darrell Johnson at a meeting of the board’s transit committee on Oct. 11. “So we’ve been thinking about it a lot.”

Senate Bill 1, known colloquially as the gas tax, was approved by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in April 2017. The bill went into effect last November and adds a 12-cent tax on gasoline and 20-cent tax on diesel fuel, and raises vehicle registration fees by $25 to $175 depending on the value of a vehicle.

The bill is estimated to raise $5 billion in new money to fund road maintenance and transportation projects statewide.

Officials are unclear what will happen to funds that have already been allocated to them for capital projects if the repeal passes, said Carpenter.

“We don’t believe that transit funds already spent would need to be repaid but whether SB1 funds allocated for capital projects would need to be paid back to the CTC (California Transportation Commission) is unclear,” said Carpenter in an email.

At a meeting Monday, none of the Board of Directors asked questions or commented after a staff presentation about the potential effects of the bill’s repeal.

Effect on Road Projects and Bus System

OCTA officials didn’t provide a complete breakdown of all the projects and funds that would be impacted by the repeal of the gas tax.

In addition to $19 million in immediate cuts to the transit system, about $92.5 million in gas tax funding was awarded to OCTA in the first round of grant awards.

$19.9 million for the Central Corridor Improvement Project, which is aimed at relieving congestion along the 55 freeway between the 405 and 5 freeways and surrounding communities. The money would specifically add five hydrogen fuel cell buses, fund traffic signal improvements and active transportation projects

$65.7 million to fund the first phase of a project to add a truck climbing lane on the 57 freeway at Lambert Road

County transportation officials have suggested repeal of the gas tax could also impact other transportation funds that have been dwindling in recent years, resulting in delays or elimination of funding for certain projects.

Cuts would likely be felt most immediately to the county’s bus system, which has endured significant cuts and restructuring in the last two years.

The agency likely would eliminate lower productivity routes, decrease the frequency of certain routes, look at reducing service hours on holidays and shorten routes where the beginning and end of the bus routes have low ridership.

The agency has, in recent years, increased the number of routes operated by private contractors, required employees to make maximum contributions to their public pensions and reduced the bus fleet by 40 vehicles, Johnson said.

Eliminating bus routes would also have the effect of reducing service for riders with disabilities, said Hewitt.

The agency is required under the Americans With Disabilities Act to provide bus service to disabled people comparable to their regular fixed-route service, known in Orange County as the ACCESS service. Because OCTA is only required to pick up disabled riders at their homes within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed-route bus stop, eliminating the route would also eliminate service for disabled people living near it.

“We’re going to catch a lot of flak if we try to reduce ACCESS,” said director Greg Winterbottom at the Oct. 11 committee meeting. “It’s really a lifeline for most users…so we upfront [should] let most people know they’re not going to be without a ride, stuck in their house.”

Riders with disabilities are still able to take the same-day taxi service, although that service is limited up to five miles, and has a higher fare.

If Prop. 6 is approved by voters in November, staff would return in December to present the board with a strategy for potential cuts.

Before any cuts can occur, the board would be required to hold public hearings. Any service cuts would likely occur in Oct. 2019.

A Partisan Political Battle

State Republicans advocating for its repeal say SB 1 is a regressive tax that punishes California residents, when the state could easily pay for transportation projects by eliminating costly projects like the $77 billion high-speed rail line.

Republicans are also hoping the issue will spur turnout among their voters during a crucial election year where seven California congressional districts, including four in Orange County, could flip from Republican- to Democrat.

A recent mailer paid for by the California Republican Party promoting state Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-Fountain Valley), for example, stated “Sacramento Liberals who raised GAS TAXES by 40% HOPE YOU DON’T VOTE!”

The director of the Orange County Republican Party, Randall Avila, did not return a request for comment Monday.

The Yes on Prop. 6 campaign, however, is being outspent by the construction industry, labor and Democratic groups, which have spent more than $40 million to oppose the measure, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Republicans successfully organized the recall of former state Sen. Josh Newman in the 32nd State Senate District in June, based on Newman’s vote to approve the gas tax.

]]>https://voiceofoc.org/2018/10/transportation-officials-gas-tax-repeal-would-cut-bus-service-11-percent/feed/4Development A Hot Topic Among Irvine City Council Candidateshttps://voiceofoc.org/2018/10/development-a-hot-topic-among-irvine-city-council-candidates/
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/10/development-a-hot-topic-among-irvine-city-council-candidates/#respondTue, 02 Oct 2018 16:24:09 +0000https://voiceofoc.org/?p=677644Rapid new development in master-planned Irvine was the focus of a city council candidate forum Sunday, hosted by the community group Irvine Watchdog and moderated by Voice of OC Publisher Norberto Santana, Jr.

With two city council seats up for election Nov. 6 and no incumbents running, the field is wide open. Of the 12 candidates who have filed to run, eight attended the Sept. 30 forum, held at Irvine High School with dozens of student volunteers.

Asked by Santana about solutions to deal with growing traffic, several candidates said the current pace of city development needs to be slowed or halted.

Abazajian also suggested “dynamic lanes” where the city could open more lanes coming into the city in the morning and shift street dividers to increase the number of lanes leaving the city in the evening.

Liqing Lee Sun, an attorney and vice president of a medical device company, said the city should invest in better public transportation infrastructure, such as connecting the city’s Metrolink station to business centers, and promoting flexible work hours among local businesses to limit traffic impacts during peak hours.

Architect Gang Chen said traffic problems stem from deviating from the city’s “village” concept where residents have most of their basic needs within a short driving distance, and children can walk or bike to school. He said adding mixed-use developments around UCI would reduce traffic by allowing students to walk to restaurants and stores.

All the candidates in attendance said they haven’t taken any money from corporate political action committees, developers or their lobbyists. They all agreed on the need for more transparency around new developments and several candidates said the current council is beholden to big developers.

Khan, Sun, Chen and Abazajian said the city should change or reexamine the process for selecting city commissioners to favor those with expertise in the area, rather than selecting political appointees.

Both McGill, who said the current council is “in the pocket of big developers,” and Woods called for the creation of citizen advisory committees.

Woods criticized council members for using electronics during council meetings and echoed a suggestion by mayoral candidate Ed Pope to ban electronics entirely during meetings.

Sun proposed requiring council members to respond to public comments at following meetings.

“I think most of us have attended a city council meeting…and you observe council members neglecting the public comments often, and they cite the Brown Act saying they cannot discuss,” said Sun.

Candidates diverged more on the issue of homelessness. As part of a federal lawsuit over the county’s response to homelessness, U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter has threatened to suspend the enforcement of anti-camping laws if cities don’t provide more shelter beds. Earlier this year, county Supervisors rejected a proposal to build an emergency shelter at a 100-acre site at the Great Park in Irvine and at two other sites, after an outpouring of opposition from residents and political leaders.

Asked what they would do if a federal judge mandates Irvine create 50 new shelter beds, some opposed a shelter outright.

Woods also said she would “oppose a mandate that would dump 50 people on our streets” although she didn’t clarify whether that means litigation.

Abazajian was the only candidate to explicitly say he supports building some kind of shelter in Irvine, saying the court is “almost certain” to require the city add shelter beds and calling it a “moral duty” for Irvine to provide a short- or long-term shelter.

Irvine should be a leader and show county supervisors “how it’s done,” Khan said, by investing more in the Irvine Land Trust to build affordable housing. Like Abazajian, she said city leaders should come out ahead of the issue and offer solutions rather than waiting for the court to issue an order.

None of the candidates denied the city has a housing affordability problem.

Chen said developers should be “held accountable” for helping to create infrastructure around large housing developments, saying the population of the city has tripled but the number of libraries and schools has largely stayed the same.

The city should increase its requirement for the number of affordable units in new developments, said Park. The city currently requires 15 percent of new units be dedicated to affordable housing.

Sun opposes any kind of subsidies for affordable housing but said he believes the city should push developers to build a variety of new units so residents have choices based on their income.

Khan said the number of families with adult children living at home is indicative of an affordability problem.

“We can build as many multi-million dollar homes as we want, but if we aren’t serving the community, who are we building these homes for?” Khan said.

Irvine Watchdog will post additional information about each candidate, as well as video statements from those who did not attend, on its website, Irvinewatchdog.org.

]]>https://voiceofoc.org/2018/10/development-a-hot-topic-among-irvine-city-council-candidates/feed/0Harbor Blvd. Streetcar is Dead; Costs for Santa Ana-Garden Grove Streetcar Skyrockethttps://voiceofoc.org/2018/09/harbor-blvd-streetcar-is-dead-costs-for-santa-ana-garden-grove-streetcar-skyrocket/
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/09/harbor-blvd-streetcar-is-dead-costs-for-santa-ana-garden-grove-streetcar-skyrocket/#respondThu, 20 Sep 2018 12:51:41 +0000https://voiceofoc.org/?p=662681A Harbor Boulevard streetcar in North Orange County is dead after split opinions among four cities along the route prompted the board of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to drop the idea.

While Santa Ana and Garden Grove – the site of a separate, existing streetcar project – support a streetcar along Harbor, the majority of officials in Anaheim and Fullerton do not.

Construction for the Santa Ana and Garden Grove streetcar, however, is expected to move forward, although at a substantially higher cost and later schedule than originally planned.

Costs for the Santa Ana to Garden Grove streetcar, known as the OC Streetcar, will be 36 percent higher than the agency’s original estimate, an additional $108.41 million in costs that will be paid out of county transportation tax funds set aside for improving transit connections to Metrolink train stations.

The agency is banking on $217 million in federal grants from the Federal Transportation Agency, which prior to the cost increases would have funded 72 percent of the project.

Original estimates put the cost of the OC Streetcar at just under $300 million. It’s now estimated to cost $407.7 million, $165.5 million of which will come from local transportation tax funds, $217 million from federal sources and $25.5 million from state sources.

According to staff, an 11-month delay in securing a federal funding agreement has increased costs throughout the project, primarily construction costs. After the new cost increases, federal funds will make up 52 percent of funding, while local tax proceeds will fund 41 percent of the project.

OCTA officials expected a finalized funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration at the end of 2017.

According to Governing Magazine, some transit advocates have accused President Donald Trump’s Administration of purposefully stalling the award of $1.8 billion in federal transportation grant monies, including $149 million in federal New Starts program dollars for the OC Streetcar.

The Federal Transit Administration says the money hasn’t been awarded yet because the projects aren’t ready.

“Any characterization of FTA delaying the funding of grants is inaccurate as the majority have not met eligibility requirements,” an FTA spokesman told the magazine.

In order to be able to receive federal reimbursement for construction costs, OCTA can’t spend money on construction until after the federal funding agreement is executed. With the agreement delayed, the agency extended a number of other deadlines for bids.

After the construction contract was re-bid, construction costs went up substantially, which OCTA staff attributed to project delays and increases in construction costs across Southern California.

OCTA spokesman Joel Zlotnik said the tax funds that will pay for the cost increase were previously untouched and unallocated monies.

The Board is expected to vote later this month to award a contract for construction of the Santa Ana to Garden Grove streetcar. Staff is recommending the contract be awarded to Walsh Construction, the second-lowest bidder, because the company that submitted the lowest bid, construction giant AECOM, did not meet a requirement for federal contractors.

The Harbor Streetcar was part of a larger study conducted by OCTA to determine what investments it should make along the street, one of the busiest transit corridors in the county.

The city of Anaheim once proposed a streetcar that would have largely served the Anaheim Resort, a district that contains the Disneyland Resort, Anaheim Convention Center, hotels and other attractions.

The city’s mayor, Tom Tait, was vehemently opposed to the project but it received the support of the majority of his colleagues on the city council at the time.

When the makeup of the city council changed after the November 2016 election in favor of Tait, the city council passed a resolution announcing its opposition to any streetcar along Harbor Boulevard, citing the cost of the project and favoring improvements in bus transit.

The Harbor Streetcar alternative would cost an estimated $690 million while a bus alternative called bus rapid transit, rated one point below the streetcar, would cost $230 million to build.

Tait has also opposed OCTA conducting any kind of study that includes discussion of a streetcar on Harbor, calling it a waste of time and money given the Anaheim council’s stated opposition.

“I appreciate not going forward with a streetcar because of issues like costs and limited right-of-way, on such a major corridor that goes through our city,” Tait said at a June 14 meeting. “To be clear on [Anaheim’s] resolution – we don’t rule out other future transit options aside from enhanced bus [services]…as technology improves, there’s going to be options for modes of transit that will be less costly and more flexible.”

Bus rapid transit is a faster bus service where the bus travels in its own dedicated lane. Because of opposition to removing a lane of traffic from Harbor, the agency will instead enhance existing bus service along the corridor.

Those improvements might include collecting fares before passengers board buses to speed up the boarding process, all-door boarding, giving buses priority at traffic intersections and increase frequency of bus service.

Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido said transit projects like the streetcar are “incremental” improvements that enable other developments to occur, pointing to the possible development of Willowick Golf Course, which sits along the planned route for the Santa Ana to Garden Grove streetcar.

He also pointed to two other proposed developments along the streetcar route: county plans to remake a complex of government buildings in downtown Santa Ana, and plans by local developer Mike Harrah for a 37-story skyscraper that was first pitched in 1999 but has remained an undeveloped, fenced-off mound of dirt.

“The streetcar is a big part of what can happen there,” Pulido said. “I see this project as very forward thinking, it’s going to innovate with future technology…and other boards will decide what to do next.”

Supervisor Shawn Nelson expressed frustration with changing positions on the Harbor Streetcar from the city of Anaheim, referencing Tait’s opposition to studying a streetcar on Harbor.

“It’s awful convenient sometimes, because there’s an election or a city manager changes, to pretend a lot of people didn’t spend a lot of time and money [on a study],” said Nelson. “That’s what studies are for: to get information.”

Without naming Tait, he said future board members who oppose a project should withhold their judgment on projects until after a study is completed.

“People need to calm down sometimes. Just because something isn’t going your way doesn’t mean the whole thing needs to be blown up. It all worked out,” he said.

“It’s a violation of law, but it’s not a major violation of law,” Stern said in a Tuesday phone interview. “Basically you can’t use government resources to further a campaign and they’re (Peotter) using government resources to assist in their campaign.”

Stern continued, “So basically, as soon as you (Voice of OC) contact them or write the story and they don’t take it down, then it’s a problem.”

Immediately after Voice of OC called the TCA with questions, the hyperlink to Peotter’s campaign website, which was on his photograph on the TCA board member biography page, was changed to his biography on the Newport Beach City Council webpage.

A screenshot of the Transportation Corridor Agencies board members with links to their profiles underneath the photographs. Taken Aug. 14, 2018.

“That was an oversight and that’s our apologies,” TCA spokeswoman Sarah King said in a Tuesday phone interview. “Our policy is to hyperlink to their city council profiles … Our team is now going through all the hyperlinks to make sure there are no broken links and to make sure there is nothing inaccurate.”

The TCA manages south Orange County’s toll roads. No other hyperlink under elected officials’ names on the agency website took people to a campaign or personal website. Peotter’s campaign web page, which Voice of OC captured in a screen shot before it was removed, had a large “donate” button on the right side.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines hyperlink as “an electronic link providing direct access from one distinctively marked place in a hypertext or hypermedia document to another in the same or a different document.” Hypertext, according to the dictionary, is “a database format in which information related to that on a display can be accessed directly from the display.”

Voice of OC open government consultant Terry Francke said if TCA allowed Peotter and other board members to put hyperlinks to campaign websites on the agency’s web page, it could have been a legal liability for the toll road agency.

“The rationale for it would be that allowing members of the JPA (Joint Powers Authority) to essentially put up a campaign billboard on the JPA’s site, might risk liability for the use of public funds for private campaign purposes,” Francke said in a Tuesday phone interview. “I think that they at least could risk a lawsuit against the agency seeking a court order telling the agency to stop providing free space to what is essentially a partisan political message.”

Peotter didn’t return calls for comment.

A screenshot showing details of Newport Beach City Councilman Scott Peotter’s link to his campaign website. Taken Aug. 14, 2018.

Stern said Peotter’s hyperlink wasn’t using a large sum of taxpayer funds, but it violates the principle of the law.

“We’re talking about cents or a few dollars when we’re talking about how much resources were used … it’s the principle more than the amount,” Stern said.

California law states, “It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.”

Spencer Custodio is a Voice of OC reporter who covers south Orange County and Fullerton. You can reach him at scustodio@voiceofoc.org. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerCustodio

“I can say that they (TCA) have sent over some of the documents requested, however the original request has still not been fulfilled,” said Assistant City Manager Erik Sund in a Thursday phone interview.

The city filed a lawsuit against the agency June 19 in an attempt to get the rest of the records it said it didn’t receive.

“We don’t understand why the TCA just won’t turn over public documents. It does create a level of ‘is there something that’s being hidden,’” he said.

San Clemente has been in a fight with the toll road agency for over a year, after a potential toll road extension was proposed through the small beach city. San Clemente residents attend nearly all monthly TCA board meetings and voice their opposition to the extension and the City Council expresses its opposition from the dais during its meetings.

The toll road agency claims it did provided San Clemente all requested records, according to an email from Spokeswoman Sarah King and comments made at Thursday’s TCA board meeting by contract attorney George Joseph, who represents the agency.

During the TCA meeting, board member and San Clemente Councilwoman Kathy Ward blamed agency staff for the lawsuit.

“Also, one thing I want to say … this board needs to take back control from the TCA staff who are making arbitrary and costly decisions — who are costing the TCA … tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees,” Ward said. “We are asking for all the invoices, including hourly, for each and every one of the consultants.”

Ward said without detailed invoices and hourly breakdowns, people won’t know what type of work the lobbyist and consulting firms are doing.

“One thing that’s disconcerting is this board pays (former Anaheim Mayor and current lobbyist) Curt Pringle and Associates directly and apparently as a subconsultant to another contract,” Ward said. “It’s been five months since we made our initial request and we still don’t have all the documents. I believe TCA should just act like a public agency … and respond to the records request and stop wasting taxpayers money.”

In response, Joseph said “I would simply confirm … that, in fact, the requested documents have been provided … All the information has been provided and the one thing I would agree on is the pending lawsuit is unnecessary, but unfortunately the city has chosen to proceed with it in any event. Other than that, I don’t think we ought to be debating the merits of that suit in open session.”

The toll road agency also disputed the claims in a July 23 court filing when it claimed it sent records to the city June 8, 21 and 28.

“Even now, TCA is continuing to compile and review documents, and anticipates producing a fourth batch of documents before the court ever hears this demurrer,” reads the filing.

But San Clemente, in a Thursday morning news release, said the TCA didn’t hand over all the lobbyists’ contracts and detailed invoices.

“Instead, they (TCA) have decided to spend tens of thousands of Orange County Taxpayer dollars on legal fees in order to keep these documents secret and out of the reach of those looking for the TCA to justify the tens of millions spent for lobbyists and consultants. The TCA’s failure to to comply with the California Public Records Act is a violation of California law,” reads the news release.

However, King, the toll road spokeswoman, said the city is wrong.

“…contrary to the assertions in the City’s press release, on August 9, 2018, TCA has provided all of the requested documents. Some of the documents took some time to provide because they included requests for expense reports which needed to be searched for in storage and then redacted to remove credit card or social security information, etc.; but all of the requested information and documents have been provided,” King wrote in a Thursday email to Voice of OC.

In Thursday’s phone interview, Sund said, “We still have a number of outstanding items that we have communicated to TCA.”

In the news release, Sund reported how much some of the consulting and lobbyist firms were paid through the TCA board’s June contract reviews. Here’s a list of what Sund says is missing from San Clemente’s records request:

Nearly a year and a half of invoices from lobbyist firm Venture Strategic. The firm makes $1.8 million a year.

Venture Strategic’s detailed invoices for the past four years and hourly billing statements, including subconsulting invoices from Curt Pringle and Associates and other subconsultants. Pringle and Associates makes at least $72,000 a year.

Four years of contracts and invoices from numerous consultants, including Robert Naylor & Associates and Nossaman LLP, which provides the TCA with contract attorneys. Naylor, a lobbyist and lawyer, was the Assembly Republican Leader in the early 1980’s and later was state Republican chairman. His firm makes about $85,000 a year.

“We are asking for all the invoices, including hourly, for each and every one of the consultants,” Ward said during the meeting. “It is time for us, the board … to take back control of this organization from staff. We cannot allow them to dictate the actions of this organization.”

Spencer Custodio is a Voice of OC reporter who covers south Orange County and Fullerton. You can reach him at scustodio@voiceofoc.org. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerCustodio

]]>https://voiceofoc.org/2018/08/san-clemente-fights-toll-road-agency-over-public-records/feed/0Grand Jury Warns Against Closing Any OC Landfillshttps://voiceofoc.org/2018/06/grand-jury-warns-against-closing-any-oc-landfills/
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/06/grand-jury-warns-against-closing-any-oc-landfills/#commentsWed, 20 Jun 2018 11:45:39 +0000https://voiceofoc.org/?p=581565Orange County grand jurors are calling on local officials to ensure all three county landfills stay open, to prevent costs from increasing and additional traffic congestion in communities near still-operating garbage dumps.

In a news release Tuesday accompanying their new report, the panel said the operating agreements for the Olinda Alpha Landfill next to Brea “will expire in less than three years.”

“If they are not renewed, trash currently sent to Brea will be redirected to Irvine and San Juan Capistrano: an increase of over 250,000 truck trips a year to those areas. This will affect traffic on freeways and local streets, and it will increase the cost of waste disposal to Orange County residents and businesses,” the grand jury wrote.

“To address these issues, the Grand Jury report recommends that the County initiate negotiations regarding the future of the landfill in Brea, and that it perform a cost/benefit analysis of the practice of importing trash from outside Orange County.”

The grand jury wrote in its report, “Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses.

“The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills,” according to the report.

The county operates three landfills: Olinda Alpha in unincorporated county land borderingBrea, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill next to Irvine, and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano.

The county’s chief spokesperson, Molly Nichelson, said county officials received the report and did not have a comment Tuesday. A formal response to the report will be issued within the 90-day timeframe required by law, she said.

State law requires the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Brea City Council to respond in writing to the report within 90 days, or by Sept. 17.

“We understand the need to maximize the useful life of the Olinda Alpha Landfill,” Brea City Manager Bill Gallardo said in an emailed statement to Voice of OC.

“As a host city, we have partnered with the County of Orange for many years and we are definitely open to discussions regarding the findings of the Grand Jury. It is our responsibility to represent the interests of Brea, as our residents, city streets and traffic continue to be impacted by nearly daily truck trips to the landfill.”

In addition to warning about the closure of the landfill near Brea, grand jurors called on county supervisors to re-assess their policy of importing trash from other counties to OC landfills, saying it will shorten the lifespan of OC’s landfills.

“Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017,” the grand jury wrote.

The county began importing trash in 1995 from the counties of Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino, each of which pay Orange County for the service.

Currently, imported trash accounts for 37 percent of the waste added to Orange County’s landfills each year, and provides 30 percent of the county’s total annual waste revenue, according to the report.

In the 2017 fiscal year, the county received $45.5 million from imported trash, according to the grand jury report.

About a quarter of that money went to the county’s waste department, another 7 percent “was retained by the County” and 5 percent “was used to compensate the host cities.”

“The great majority, 63 [percent] or $28.7 million, was used to retire the bankruptcy bonds and to pay other bankruptcy-related expenses,” the grand jury wrote.

“The bankruptcy bonds were discharged by July 1, 2017, but the County continues to import trash and collect fees, with contracts running until 2025,” the grand jury continued.

“Most of these fees will be used to pay the $33.3 million owed to a handful of cities, special districts and internal county accounts that elected not to be repaid out of bond proceeds. A surplus, estimated to be between $5-8 million annually, remains beyond that.”

During federal court hearings about homelessness earlier this year, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter questioned why the county wasn’t using freed up funding streams from the now-retired bankruptcy debt – such as the trash import revenues – to help address homelessness.

Carter presided over a court case in the 1990s related to the county bankruptcy, and cited a figure of over $60 million in freed-up county money that had been paying off the bankruptcy debt.

In response to these questions, county officials said the imported trash revenue is controlled by contracts between the county and Orange County cities and is “not available for homelessness-related costs.” Their response did not say whether those agreements can be changed to allow the funds to be used to address homelessness.

Grand jurors, in their report Tuesday, issued two recommendations to the county and Brea:

“By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding.”

“By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system.”

As for the current landfill operations, the grand jurors credited county officials with running an efficient operation.

“Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County,” the grand jury wrote.

“The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods.”

In its news release Tuesday, the grand jury said it “expects to release reports on other topics of interest this month,” before its term expires June 30. A new grand jury is scheduled to be empaneled on July 1 for a year-long term.

Members of the public can see the grand jury’s full reports on its website, www.ocgrandjury.org.

Nick Gerda covers county government and Santa Ana for Voice of OC. You can contact him at ngerda@voiceofoc.org.

]]>https://voiceofoc.org/2018/06/grand-jury-warns-against-closing-any-oc-landfills/feed/1Anaheim Approves New Rules for Neighborhood Parking Permitshttps://voiceofoc.org/2018/03/anaheim-approves-new-rules-for-neighborhood-parking-permits/
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/03/anaheim-approves-new-rules-for-neighborhood-parking-permits/#respondFri, 30 Mar 2018 13:43:26 +0000https://voiceofoc.org/?p=511383Anaheim City Council members have approved a new rules for permit parking in residential neighborhoods, after more than a year of heated public forums and meetings about parking problems.

For years the city has heard complaints from homeowners and apartment dwellers of scarce parking in their neighborhoods, generating illegal parking problems in alleys, excessive trash and fueling disputes between neighbors.

Residents have complained about long walks at night from their car to their home, rearranging their lives to make sure they find a parking spot at night, and swallowing parking citations as a cost of living in the neighborhood.

The problem is especially bad in neighborhoods with apartment complexes, many built in previous decades with much fewer parking spaces than are required today.

The new changes were approved by the City Council March 27 on a 7-0 vote. The changes are aimed at shortening the application process to convert a neighborhood to permit-only street parking, address concerns that the program favored homeowners over renters, and prevent spillover issues that push cars from permitted streets to nearby neighborhoods.

All city streets are now eligible to convert to permit-only parking.

Although permit parking zones will, by default, restrict parking to permit holders only for 24-hours a day, seven day a week, petitioners can ask for different hours for parking restrictions.

Any previously-approved parking district, however, will be grandfathered into the program as-is.

Each parking permit will cost $30 and last two years, after which the permit will need to be renewed. Each household can purchase up to 100 guest permits each calendar year for $1 each.

The program also includes new restrictions on oversized vehicles and cars marked “for sale,” to address a growing problem in certain neighborhoods with recreational vehicles blocking visibility and unlicensed used car dealers taking up curb space with dozens of cars.

An oversized vehicle is any vehicle longer than 22 feet, or a vehicle that is both wider and taller than seven feet.

Councilwoman Denise Barnes and Councilman Jose Moreno both expressed concerns that new rules prohibiting the parking of oversized vehicles on public streets would punish homeless families living in recreational vehicles.

“I’d like to pursue an area where folks can park their RVs if they are in need,” Moreno said. “I’d rather they be living in an RV than in a park.”

City staff noted that, because most cities in Orange County have restrictions on oversized vehicles, Anaheim has become a magnet for RV parking.

Councilwoman Kris Murray showed an image, sent to her by a constituent, of a neighborhood with at least a dozen RVs parked one after another.

Moreno also raised concerns about charging residents for guest permits, suggesting that the first 50 permits per household be free.

“It sounds like nothing, but ultimately it starts to add up, in terms of how social you can be with your friends,” said Moreno. “We’re basically privatizing our streets. That doesn’t feel right.”

The new rules were well-received by the Apartment Association of Orange County, which approached the city more than a year ago with concerns that the permit parking program disadvantaged apartment renters.

The new program requires apartment owners to prove they are enforcing parking rules on their property and maximizing parking space before they can qualify for a permit. It also requires homeowners to show they are using all their driveway and garage space.

Lou Penrose, the executive director of the Apartment Association, praised city staff.

“I do this a lot, and I do this with a lot of cities, but nowhere have we had a better experience,” Penrose said.

The changes also include:

Permits will be issued to each household based on the number of bedrooms: 1 permit for 0-2 bedrooms; 2 permits for 3-4 bedrooms; 3 permits for 5 or more bedrooms

Create a process to revoke parking permits if the permit holder violates the municipal code, vehicle code or the permit parking ordinance

Gets rid of a requirement that petitioners hold a neighborhood meeting

Establishes “good neighbor” guidelines for permit holders

Creates a temporary placard system to identify oversized that are temporarily loading or unloading, such as moving trucks or RVs

Correction: A previous version of this story stated the new program would limit parking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. While that is the default for most parking districts, exceptions will be made, according to city spokesman Mike Lyster.